<quoted text>No, that was not my contention, Moron.You were the one who said that civil rights meant "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" all the while claiming that the issue of same sex marriage is not a civil right.I asked you to explain HOW the "pursuit of happiness" doesn't include the right of everyone to marry the consenting adult of their choice, and YOU deflected with your list of crimes that are illegal for everyone.

Where it is legal, you can, where it isn't, you can't.Like pot. Where it is legal, you can and where it isn't, you can't.

<quoted text>You must not have read the links Bitner provided yesterday. I did. One wiki page was nothing but names of people murdered because they were GLBT. And these crimes went back over a hundred years.

Of course she didn't. She'd have had to admit that her question was stupid if she had.

One of those men was killed by a group merely because they didn't like the fact that he'd dyed his hair pink.

100% of LGBT people face the possibility of death on the whim of others. Daily.

And, actually, you can't say the same for embryos/fetuses.

So, she didn't think, she asked a TRULY stupid question, and will now ignore the facts, and deflect.

<quoted text>You're deflecting again. You haven't answered my question. I'm not talking about "legal", but about civil rights.HOW does the "pursuit of happiness" NOT include being able to marry the consenting adult you love.

You can pursue anything you want to make you happy including gay marriage.

100% of LGBT people face the possibility of death on the whim of others. Daily.And, actually, you can't say the same for embryos/fetuses.So, she didn't think, she asked a TRULY stupid question, and will now ignore the facts, and deflect.

You can say that about everybody. Did you see 13 people shot in Chicago last night on the whim of someone else? Or how about the 12 shot in Wash on the whim of someone else?

<quoted text>What does that mean to you?<quoted text>Where is that belief coming from when gays are refused service by christian business owners much like blacks were refused service by white business owners?

Being black is not against religious principals. Gay marriage is but where it is the law religious people have to obey even though they may not want to participate.

I have said this over and over and I will continue as long as you keep asking the same question.

<quoted text>You can't say it about embryos or fetuses. 100% of them are not in danger of "death on a whim". But, 100% of LGBT people ARE.You asked a really, truly, stupid question. I answered. Stop trying to change the parameters of that question.

There were MANY churches in the South (particularly pre-1960's) who considered the mixing of the races, be it social or in marriage, to go against thier religion). Times have certainly changed, but it was very much against the teachings of many christian faihts.

Ink wrote:

Gay marriage is but where it is the law religious people have to obey even though they may not want to participate.I have said this over and over and I will continue as long as you keep asking the same question.

And you fail to distinguish between a religion (priest/minister) or a business. For example, if you own the local bakery and a Baptist, heterosexual couple comes in and wants to buy a wedding cake you'd be happy to sell it to them. However, if that same Baptist, heterosexual couple came to the local Catholic priest and said hey, wwe'd like you to marry us you wouldn't expect him to perform the ceremony. Does that make any sense to you?

<quoted text>What does that mean to you?<quoted text>Where is that belief coming from when gays are refused service by christian business owners much like blacks were refused service by white business owners?

We know of two occurences where someone didn't want to provide a service for a gay marriage. Every black in the south couldn't eat at a white establishment or sit where they want on a bus, drink from a water fountain, go to school or even speak to a white person. I would take issue that not being able to marry is a far cry from what the blacks went through.

---------From the above report, by doing to dismantle Syria chemical weapons is making clumsy way, such that Syria needs to turn in data for examination, to possibly open up for inspection like Iraq again, which will make others say much more if US saying unsatisfactory to be hassling Syria more, like another Iraq cycle. That can lead to further scrutinizing to do more of some other Iraq unrest in the final end again. As this is like former Iraq case weapons inspection, it is doing the similar ugly matter of Bush-the Iraq blueprint case of another story of Syria just like Iraq story, as even whoeever did not start that--but just calling chemical WEAPONS ISSUE only. In doing so,is repeating the Iraq inspection and dismantling programs process before US bombed Iraq at that time--what a waste of time is doing the same old failure thing of dismantling chemical weapons?

IN SHORT, BY CONCLUSION, THERE SHOULD NEVER BE AGAIN ANY of this irritated failure thing of dismantling chemical weapons anywhere because Iraq awful drama syndrome proves all.SHOULD HAVE DONE THESE:(1) Should not take literally what Obama says from passing the buck to keep on this chemical weapons drama. THERE SHOULD NEVER BE AGAIN ANY of this irritated failure thing to dismantle chemical weapons IN SYRIA because Iraq drama proves all.(2) REJECT redline as it is arbitrary--that is, when will be the thresh-hold degree to such case that is the redline defined, that there is such ground of comprehensive International law to enforce such. Furthermore, 8/21 incident is not the case nor basis, as it is entirely out of line to conclude such pattern in noting, in addition to Assad's saying he did not do it while rebels have sarin gas.(3) The matter of knowing Syria has sarin gas is besides the point if it has not used it, that there is not the need to dismantle Syria chemical weapons, to outcome again the Iraq destructive case, of dismantling Syria like Iraq WMD again, which is being turned down by the whole world.(4) There is no such redline that chemical weapons usage in Syria is an issue, except the turmoil situation is the only bearing of the importance to focus on. This is not to make diversion and to pull away from the only concern focus on the Syria unrest. Therefore, chemical weapons issue is not applicable, for there is no such redline in the first place.(5) THERE IS NO REDLINE WHATSOEVER AT ALL, such as Syria, that Obama needs to tone down the tension as these are basic rules that US needs to conform to, by making a change, as US has been seen to engage in much aggression, particularly in the ME region.(6) As not to do and repeat the similar failure case of Iraq, this proves that calling chemical weapons and redline is purely arbitrary and is not appropriate to deal with chemical weapons as issue, FOR all that is PURELY hysteria with no basis.(7) UN has to reject that as an issue, based on all the reports of unproven or not, which will make no difference whatsoever from whatever reports.(8) It is only the option for Syria to choose to do with its chemical weapons whatever it wants, to turn in or not, as long as it does not use it--for no trend has indicated the usage at all.(9) Chemical weapons ARE NOT as THE issue. That is THIS STAND, FOR THIS DOES ALL RELATED TO THE SOLUTION -- US has no basis of ill hysteria and cannot force Syria to need what to do with its chemical weapons, for there cannot be another Iraq matter of chemical weapons pursuit again.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.